Case Studies - Affordable Housing Regulatory ... - City of Alexandria

Table of Contents
Affordable Housing Regulatory Tools Case Studies
Compiled by the Alexandria Office of Housing, December 2010
Development Review Process Improvements
1. Austin, Texas: S.M.A.R.T. Housing program ‐ Fee and Tax Reductions for Affordable Housing
2. Santa Fe, New Mexico
3. Polk County, Florida: Impact Fee Waiver for Affordable Housing
Developing Partnerships for Affordable Housing
4. Denver Metro
5a. Boulder, Colorado: Mandatory Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
5b. Denver, Colorado: Inclusionary Housing Policy ‐ Moderately Priced Dwelling Unit
Program
Partnership Development
5. San Francisco Bay Area Governments
6. Housing Trust of Santa Clara County (HTSCC)
Density as a Tool
7. Seattle, Washington: Transfer of Development Rights Program
Geography Based Tools (Overlay Districts)
8. Commonwealth of Massachusetts: Chapter 40R Program
9. Corte Madera, California: Affordable Housing Overlay Zones
This document was compiled in December 2010 by the Alexandria Office of Housing to complement the November
11, 2010 Housing Master Plan Advisory Group presentation: Land Use Policy and Regulatory Tools for Preserving
and Creating Affordable Housing.
Sources are provided within each case study below. For a comprehensive resource providing case studies on a
variety of tools implemented nationwide, see: Research on State and Local Means of Increasing Affordable
Housing, available at:
http://www.nahb.org/fileUpload_details.aspx?contentTypeID=3&contentID=91006&subContentID=138628
Affordable Housing Regulatory Tools Case Studies Compiled by the Alexandria Office of Housing, December 2010
1

1. Austin Texas ‐ Development Review Process Improvements
Sources:
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/auditor/au01303.htm, http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/auditor/downloads/au01303.pdf,
http://www.lakecountyfl.gov/pdfs/2025/SMART_Housing.pdf
Overview
In April 2000, Austin city council passed a resolution creating the S.M.A.R.T. Housing program in order to moderate
the trends that made much of the local real estate unaffordable for low and medium income families. The Program
provides a set of criteria to be met by developers of reasonably priced housing to serve families with incomes of 80
percent or below the area median family income (MFI) in order to receive City incentives. Incentives offered to
developers include land development fee waivers and expedited development review.
How does it work?
The S.M.A.R.T Housing projects must be safe, mixed income, affordable, reasonably priced, and transit oriented. In
addition, the projects must be energy efficient. Developers who agree to make a portion of their developments
reasonably priced and comply with the other program requirements will be eligible to receive full or partial fee
waivers. Specifically, the S.M.A.R.T. Housing resolution provides for the waiver of thirty types of development
related fees, including land development fees (zoning, subdivision, site plan); building permit and inspection fees;
subdivision construction inspection fees; and water and wastewater capital recovery (impact) fees.
After developers submit an application consisting of preliminary project plans, the S.M.A.R.T. Housing program
manager reviews the plans for compliance with the program requirements. If the preliminary plans indicate
compliance with the established criteria, the program manager approves and certifies the plan and submits the
plan through the expedited development review process. Staff walks applicants through major issues early and
identifies “gotcha issues.” A review team reviews the plans within 14 working days. The review team reviews
corrected plans, if any, within seven working days and the applicant is required to submit revisions for rejected
plans within seven working days.
Results
Since 2005, more than 4,900 S.M.A.R.T. Housing units have been completed, and nearly 80% of these have been
affordable to families at or below 80% of the Median Family Income (MFI). In 2004, 21% of all building permits
issued for single family residences in Austin were S.M.A.R.T. Houses. That year alone, nearly 600 new homes were
built in the Austin area under the auspices of S.M.A.R.T. Housing. As of 2002, fees waived under the Program
totaled approximately $1,214,000.
Challenges
S.M.A.R.T Housing program challenges include: promoting too much demand to allow full fee waivers without
impacting utility rates; maintaining longer term affordability without decreasing building; serving lower income
residents without increasing the concentration of poverty in traditionally low‐income neighborhoods; amending
local accessibility requirements that exceed national standards without “watering down” the goal of increased
accessibility for people with disabilities; and recognizing that the goals of increasing density and tax base may
conflict with goals of increasing housing affordability and mitigating gentrification.
Applicability to Alexandria
Implementing an affordable housing policy that would expedite the development review process and provide
developer incentives such as fee waivers could increase the affordable housing stock in the City of Alexandria.
Affordable Housing Regulatory Tools Case Studies Compiled by the Alexandria Office of Housing, December 2010
2

Although implementing such policy would not need state enabling legislation, resources to support a fee waiver
program should be evaluated.
2. Santa Fe, New Mexico: Fee and Tax Reductions for Affordable Housing
Sources
http://www.santafenm.gov/index.aspx?NID=642
http://www.tbrpc.org/resource_center/pdfs/housing/Santa_Fe_NM_AH.PDF
Overview
The City of Santa Fe, New Mexico has adopted several policies that expedite permitting as well as waive, reimburse
or reduce various fees for affordable housing projects. Fees that were waived for the development of affordable
housing include building permit, impact, and utility expansion fees.
How does it work?
The City of Santa Fe, New Mexico accelerated the permitting process for projects that include at least 25 percent
affordable housing. In addition, the city passed the following ordinances relating to fees for affordable housing
projects.
Resolution No. 1994‐96 waives standard building permit fees for nonprofit affordable housing developers.
It also reimburses these fees to for‐profit builders after the developer certifies that the sales price, size of
the unit, size of the household and household incomes meet affordable standards.
Section 14‐95.4 SFCC 1987 (Capital Impact Fee) exempts affordable housing from capital development
impact fees for nonprofit affordable housing developers and reimburses for profit developers after the
developer certifies that the sales price, size of the unit, size of the household and household incomes
meet affordable standards.
Section 14‐96.8B SFCC 1987 (Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance) waives plan submittal fees for annexation,
rezoning or subdivisions for low‐priced housing developments (those providing no less than 75%
affordable units) and waives building permit fees for low price units (those affordable to households
earning less than 80% of median area income).
Ordinance No. 2000‐01 reduces the utility expansion charge for meter service for a low priced dwelling
unit (those affordable to households earning less than 80% of median income) to $800 (compared to the
standard charge of $2,000).
Results
By the early 1990s, three quarters of Santa Fe’s residents could not afford a median priced home, and housing
costs were 40% above the national average. Expedited permitting, along with the reduction in administration and
impact fees and other zoning & planning tools, have helped make nearly 16% of all new homes built in Santa Fe
during the last decade affordable for working families.
Applicability to Alexandria
The manner in which every city administers the development process is different and some of the fees charged by
the City of Santa Fe may not be charged by the City of Alexandria and vice versa. However, implementing policies
and procedures that waive fees and expedite the review process are options that could be available to the City of
Alexandria. The City must evaluate these options and determine the impact that waiving fees can have on
competing priorities. The city would not need state enabling legislation to implement this program.
Affordable Housing Regulatory Tools Case Studies Compiled by the Alexandria Office of Housing, December 2010
3

3. Polk County, Florida: Impact Fee Waiver for Affordable Housing
Source:
http://www.lakelandgov.net/commdev/planning/files/F362ADA2867D4808B3D28B21D9C89A09.pdf
Overview
Polk County, Florida charges impact fees to help cover the cost of new development. These fees help to defray the
cost of new infrastructure including roads, water and sewer lines, recreation facilities, and even schools. In order
to encourage the development of affordable housing, the county provides waivers and reductions to these fees.
How does it work?
There are several steps to Polk County’s impact fee waiver and reduction process. First, the developer pays the full
impact fee when applying for the permit for the affordable housing project. Upon sale of a housing unit to a
qualified buyer, the County reimburses the full portion of the impact fee for buyers at or below 80 percent of area
median income and half of the impact fee for buyers between 80 percent and 120 percent of the area median
income. The County requires the impact fee waivers to be repaid by the homeowner if the house is sold within
seven years, and it places a lien on the property to enforce this repayment requirement. The fee waivers and
reductions are also available to commercial property owners who rent units to qualified income groups. In order
to retain this waiver, commercial property owners must certify annually that the units are occupied by income
eligible renters.
Polk County first introduced impact fee waivers in 1990, and the fee waivers granted are funded from general
revenues, gas taxes, and other sources of revenue. In order to limit the financial impact that the waivers might
have on the county budget, the county sets a maximum annual waiver cap of $250,000 across all projects. If the
cap is reached, a developer may appeal to the appropriate commission for fee waivers that would exceed the cap.
Results
As of 2008, only nonprofit organizations have taken advantage of the impact fee waiver ordinance. According to
Jeff Bagwell, the executive director of a local non‐profit, the impact fee waiver alone is not enough to make
homeownership affordable to moderate‐income families in the county.
Challenges
The county has found that the impact fee alone is not enough to encourage the development of affordable
housing by the development community. In addition, many developers have been hesitant to use this tool due to
the lack of clarity surrounding the details of the impact fee waiver. Therefore, educating the development
community and ensuring clarity of the fee waiver is important to the future success of the program.
Applicability to Alexandria
The City of Alexandria does not charge specific impact fees for development projects. However, developers are
required to address infrastructure issues through the City’s permitting process. Allowing for the reduction in fees
in exchange for affordable housing would be a tool available to the City, but the impact to competing priorities
would need to be considered. The city would not need state enabling legislation to implement this program.
4. Denver Metropolitan Area – Partnership Development
Facing high land costs, rising home prices, and the typical metropolitan problems of sprawl, a jobs‐housing
mismatch, and traffic congestion—communities in the Metro Denver area have implemented local policies that
create affordable housing in order to positively impact these interconnected problems. The Metro Denver
experience shows that any municipality can take local action to successfully address the need for more affordable
Affordable Housing Regulatory Tools Case Studies Compiled by the Alexandria Office of Housing, December 2010
4

housing. And, in the process, a municipality can help to address the broader quality of life issues that affect its
citizens and the citizens across the region. The examples below show how two of the four cities created significant
affordable housing using inclusionary zoning. Details of the programs may differ, but the concept is the same.
4a. Boulder, Colorado
Source:
http://www.bpichicago.org/documents/Denver_Report.pdf
Overview
In 2000, in response to rapidly rising housing costs and the ineffectiveness of a voluntary inclusionary housing
program, the City of Boulder passed a mandatory inclusionary housing ordinance. The new program requires 20%
of housing in new developments to be priced affordably for low‐income households (households earning less than
80% of the area median income). The comprehensive mandatory ordinance covers all residential developments
regardless of size (with the exception of developments of a single lot with one owner and total floor area of less
than 1,600 feet).
How does it work?
If the development has four or fewer units, the developer must create one affordable unit on‐site, one affordable
unit off‐site, dedicate land for one affordable unit, or pay a fee of roughly $18,000 to Boulder’s Affordable Housing
Trust Fund. The only cost offset provided to the developer is a waiver of development excise taxes. However, for
developments that provide more than 20% affordable units, the developer can also receive subsidy funds for land
use review and building permit fees.
Results
Since 2000, the City of Boulder constructed 380 affordable homes, including condominiums, townhomes, and
single‐family homes. While market‐rate units in the developments continued to sell for between $390,000 and
$430,000, the affordable units were priced between $112,000 and $185,000. Ninety‐eight percent of people who
moved into the affordable units already lived or worked in Boulder, and they included teachers, nurses and other
service sector workers. The City collected $1.5 million in fee‐in‐lieu payments from roughly 50 developments.
Payments are deposited in an affordable housing fund, which has subsidized the creation of about 80 affordable
units each year.
Challenges
The current inclusionary zoning ordinance has both a direct and an indirect effect on the market price of housing in
Boulder. The direct effect is that developers must make up the incremental cost of constructing permanently
affordable dwellings. Some of these costs are passed on to Boulder‘s homebuyers. The indirect effect is that house
prices for all housing consumers increase as the City takes existing dwellings out of the housing stock and
dedicates them to permanent affordable units. Furthermore, the existing program for permanent affordable
owner‐occupied housing accelerates the rate of depreciation in the stock of owner‐occupied housing because it
does not allow homeowners to earn a return on their maintenance and repair expenditures.
Applicability to Alexandria
The mandatory zoning approach to affordable housing has proven to be a very effective means of increasing the
number affordable housing units in many localities and could be a very effective tool to produce more affordable
housing in the City of Alexandria. However, this tool would need state enabling legislation to be implemented.
Affordable Housing Regulatory Tools Case Studies Compiled by the Alexandria Office of Housing, December 2010
5

4b. City of Denver
Sources:
http://www.bpichicago.org/documents/Denver_Report.pdf
www.realtor.org/smart_growth.nsf/docfiles/winter07proscons.pdf/$FILE/winter07proscons.pdf
http://www.milehigh.com/resources/custom/pdf/housing/2004_Final_IHO_Report.pdf
Overview
To address the growing affordability crisis, in 2002, the City of Denver passed an inclusionary housing policy called
the Moderately Priced Dwelling Unit program. The policy requires all new owner occupied developments of more
than 30 units to include 10% of the units as affordable. As of 2005, the ordinance—coupled with the rezoning of
large‐scale redevelopments and proactive planning for affordable housing—resulted in the creation of 3,395
affordable homes in Denver.
How does it work?
The policy is voluntary for rental developments, and it does not apply to condo conversions. The owner‐occupied
units must be affordable to households earning less than 80% of area median income. A developer who provides
the affordable units will receive a 10% density bonus (except for developments in certain zoning districts, planned
unit developments, or districts where no residential use is permitted). The developer may also receive a subsidy of
$5,000 to $10,000 per affordable unit (up to 50% of the total units), a reduction in the number of required parking
spaces per unit, and an expedited permitting process. Instead of building the affordable units on‐site, a developer
may pay a fee of 50% of the price per affordable unit not built into the trust fund. The developer may build the
affordable units off‐site if she or he builds more affordable units than would have been required in the market‐rate
development. The MPDUs must remain affordable for at least 15 years after they are first sold.
Results
As of 2002, development was continuing apace and 3,395 affordable homes were built. The City planned to review
its “fee‐in‐lieu‐of housing” payment program that was established to provide developers an option to pay a fee
instead of providing a moderate price dwelling unit (MPDU). From constitutional arguments to price and rent
control prohibitions, inclusionary housing proponents frequently have to overcome legal challenges from a
development community that is often fervent in its opposition. In addition, some challenges faced in Denver as of
2004 include: on‐going management and monitoring of the housing inventory being created by the requirement
for the entire affordability period of each unit; maintaining adequate funding for the rebate incentive (the program
relies upon a nominal amount of projects electing the cash‐in‐lieu option to provide income to support payment of
the rebates), enhancing the incentive package to keep pace with developer concerns (the use of current incentives
needs to be reviewed, with developer input, to ensure that they are effectively assisting in providing affordability
to their projects), and ensuring that unit production assisted by the program is consistent with the targeted needs
of households.
Applicability to Alexandria
Establishing a voluntary zoning or incentive zoning policy enables local governments to provide density bonuses
and other incentives to developers, in exchange for delivery of public benefits such as affordable housing. While
such a tool can help produce more affordable housing in the City of Alexandria, it would need state enabling
legislation to be implemented.
Affordable Housing Regulatory Tools Case Studies Compiled by the Alexandria Office of Housing, December 2010
6

5. San Francisco Bay Area ‐ Partnership Development
Sources:
http://www.bayareavision.org/initiatives/equitabledevelopment.html#sf
http://www.abag.ca.gov/planning/housingneeds/pdf/resources/A_Place_to_Call_Home_2007.pdf
http://www.abag.ca.gov/housing‐top.html
http://www.sjhousing.org/report/edec/Ecdc/6‐23‐08/Housing_Element.pdf
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), a regional land use planning agency for the nine‐county San
Francisco Bay Area, is very involved in trying to increase the range of housing choices in the region. One of the
initiatives recently completed is the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). RHNA is a state mandated process
for determining how many housing units, including affordable units, each community must plan to accommodate.
Working with local governments, ABAG developed an allocation methodology for assigning units, by income
category, to each city and county in the nine‐county Bay Area. This allocation of need shows local governments the
total number of housing units, by affordability, for which they must plan in their Housing Elements (a plan that
ensures that local governments adequately plan to meet the housing needs of all people within the community—
regardless of their income) for the period. Allocations for each jurisdiction are published in the annual housing
report.
How does it work?
The regional housing need is determined by estimating the existing and projected need for housing. Both are
determined through estimates of existing and projected household growth. Household growth is dependent on
total net births, migration and household formation rates ‐ how many new households are formed each year, e.g.,
young adults move out of their parent’s home into homes of their own.
Results
The 2006 projected regional need for the Bay Area was 230,743 housing units.
Challenges
The RHNA presents both opportunities and challenges for the region. To meet the RHNA goal, cities have
developed housing policies, implemented land use regulations, and/or inventoried housing opportunity sites in
order to facilitate housing production. While some cities have proactively planned for residential uses in their
General Plan and have met some of its goals, it is a challenge for the homebuilding industry to construct units at a
high enough level of production for all income categories in order to meet the cities’ RHNA goal. Construction of
homes, according RHNA goals, is especially challenging given the slowdown in the housing market and in the
overall economy. Banks have tightened their lending practices, making conditions difficult for consumers to obtain
mortgages and potentially for developers to obtain construction loans. Raw material and construction costs have
increased significantly in the last few years, creating challenges to develop housing projects that are financially
feasible, especially for affordable housing developments
Applicability to Alexandria
While a regional program has the potential to address housing and related issues (such as congestion/traffic) by
requiring jurisdictions to produce a range of housing for all income levels, there are significant challenges to
establishing such a program for the DC Metro area. While the Council of Governments (COG) does currently serve
as the regional coordinating organization, the area it covers spans three states and many jurisdictions. In addition,
local jurisdictions in Virginia are not currently allowed to require affordable housing, and would therefore require
Affordable Housing Regulatory Tools Case Studies Compiled by the Alexandria Office of Housing, December 2010
7

state enabling legislation to be implemented. This program appears to be of limited value in structuring a program
for Alexandria.
6. Housing Trust Santa Clara County (HTSCC)
Source:
http://www.housingtrustscc.org/about‐us/index.php
How it Works
In the 1990's, the high cost of housing in Silicon Valley had skyrocketed. Individuals and families were impacted, as
well as business owners, who complained of recruiting and retention problems. Led by the Santa Clara County
Board of Supervisors, what is now the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, affordable housing activists, local
businesses and foundations organized to create something groundbreaking: a non‐profit Housing Trust, supported
by voluntary contributions, devoted to addressing the full range of affordable housing needs from increasing
homeownership and preventing homelessness to increasing the supply of rental and permanent housing. Within
two years HTSCC had exceeded its goal of raising $20 million from a range of sources, including: The Santa Clara
County Board of Supervisors, Intel, Adobe Systems, Cisco Systems, Applied Materials, Solectron and homebuilder
KB Homes, and all cities and towns in Santa Clara County.
Results
Today, scores of Silicon Valley employers, employer foundations, state and federal housing agencies and private
citizens have contributed to the shared goal to increase affordable housing options. HTSCC has raised more than
$40 million to invest more than $32 million to create thousands of housing opportunities for Silicon Valley's
workforce, families, seniors and special needs individuals by making loans and grants to developers increasing the
supply of affordable housing, assisting first‐time homebuyers, preventing homelessness and stabilizing
neighborhoods, and leveraged over $1.7 billion to create more than 7,800 housing opportunities. Of those served,
83% had household incomes below 80% of the Area Medium Income (AMI).
First‐Time Homebuyer Program
Total Invested: over $14.7 million
Total Leveraged: over $693 million
New Homeowners Created: 2,089
Developer Loan Program
Total Invested: $7.8 million
Total Leveraged: $467 million
Families Helped: 1,643
Homelessness Prevention Program
Total Invested: nearly $10.4 million
Families and Individuals Assisted with Housing: nearly 4,110
Applicability to Alexandria
A housing trust fund leveraging public and private funds would certainly be applicable in Alexandria. The challenge
is that while Alexandria does have significantly high housing costs, like Silicon Valley, it might not likely have the
same level of potential corporate participation or corporate interest, and may not have the political/public
constituency to build an organization of this scale. However it could be explored at a smaller scale, and/or on a
regional level.
Affordable Housing Regulatory Tools Case Studies Compiled by the Alexandria Office of Housing, December 2010
8

7. Seattle Washington Transfer of Development Rights Program
Source:
http://www.seattle.gov/housing/incentives/TDRbonus.htm
http://www.housingpolicy.org/toolbox/strategy/policies/diverse_housing_types.html?tierid=45
Overview
The City of Seattle Washington adopted a Transferable Development Rights (TDR) Program in 1985. This program
allows commercial developers who want more density than allowed under zoning rules to purchase unused
density from owners of downtown properties with affordable housing, landmark buildings, or major open space.
This program sets up a framework in which developers can purchase additional development rights instead of
going through various administrative processes that allow them to increase the density on their project.
How does it work?
The City designated sending and receiving areas within the downtown portions of the City. The receiving areas are
places where additional development is desired and the sending areas include affordable housing units that City
wishes to preserve. Commercial developers who own property in the designated receiving areas can negotiate
and purchase unused density from property owners in the sending area. Additionally, the City of Seattle purchases
unused density from the owners of certified TDR sites and places that density in a TDR bank. All transactions,
whether private or through the City, require execution and recording of a TDR Agreement between the owner of
the TDR site and the City. The TDR is validly transferred by Statutory Warranty Deed and is recognized by the
courts as real property. In return for the ability to sell the unused square footage on their property, owners of
certified TDRs are required to preserve the housing located there as affordable for a period of 50 years, typically to
residents at or below 50% percent of the area median income. In addition, the money that property owners
receive from the sale of a TDR is used to rehabilitate the property and increase its useful life.
Results
Seattle’s TDR and bonus programs have contributed over $14 million of funding for affordable housing projects in
downtown. In return, this funding has helped to preserve over 900 units of affordable housing in 14 downtown
projects. Of the 900 units, 491 units are affordable to households up to 30% of median income and 342 units are
affordable to households up to 50% of median income. In light of the newly adopted emphasis of the FAR system
on housing, these two programs are projected to contribute an additional $14 million toward the preservation and
production of affordable housing in downtown in the next 10 years.
Challenges
One of the identified challenges of this program is the willingness to allow commercial developers to buy
additional property rights. In order to create a market for TDRs, the local government must be willing to make
developers purchase additional development rights instead of simply awarding them through an administrative
process. Furthermore, local governments must be willing to allow the extra development potential without
demanding several other additional requirements. Another challenge is creating the market for the TDRs. Seattle
created this market by buying many of the development rights during the beginning of the years of the project
which requires capital.
Applicability to Alexandria
This tool could be applicable to the City of Alexandria because, like Seattle, Alexandria has high land cost. The high
land costs create an atmosphere in which higher densities are desirable among commercial developers hence
helping to create a market for the TDRs. However, this tool does require strong political and community support
Affordable Housing Regulatory Tools Case Studies Compiled by the Alexandria Office of Housing, December 2010
9

to uphold the zoning by right issues and higher densities in various portions of the city, and the city would need to
adopt a more entrepreneurial approach to land use in helping facilitate TDR negotiations. State enabling legislation
would not be needed to implement this program.
8. Commonwealth of Massachusetts Chapter 40R Program
Source:
http://www.mass.gov/envir/smart_growth_toolkit/pages/mod‐40R.html
Overview
Massachusetts’ Chapter 40R program encourages communities to create dense residential or mixed‐use smart
growth zoning districts located near transit stations, in areas of concentrated development such as existing city
and town centers, and in other highly suitable locations. In addition, Chapter 40R districts are required to include a
high percentage of affordable housing.
How does it work?
The Chapter 40R Program encourages communities to establish development overlay zones in smart growth
locations by offering financial incentives to the local governments ($3,000 per housing unit). In order to receive the
financial incentives, a local government must adopt an overlay zone that meets the location and procedural
processes established by the statute. The overlay zones are then approved by the states and the financial
incentives are paid once housing units are built.
In addition to the location criteria, the overlay zones must meet a number of procedural criteria in order to receive
approval from the state. The overlay zone must allow residential densities of at least 8 to 20 units an acre by right,
offer developers a more certain approval process including making allowable uses by right, establish a maximum
120 day period for project approvals, and allow denials only for non‐compliance with the bylaw or design
standards. In order to be an approved Chapter 40R district eligible for the financial incentives, at least 20 percent
of the housing built within the overlay zone must be affordable.
Results
This state law was enacted in 2005 and as of August 2009 27 districts have been approved that will allow for the
construction of 9,780 housing units, 2,100 of which must be affordable. Of the 27 districts, 17 have given plan
approval for a total of 3,214 units of which at least 830 will be affordable and 347 have been built. The success of
these districts has sparked additional interest and it is estimated that about 20 communities are reported to be
planning or considering creating districts Chapter 40R Districts.
Challenges
One of the challenges that has been identified is the time and expense it takes to set up a district. Planners
interviewed on the Chapter 40R program suggest it took on average more than a year to go through the planning,
public hearing, application, local and state approval process. In addition, it is estimated that the cost to set up a
district was $35,000 – $65,000.
Applicability to Alexandria
Since the Chapter 40R Program is a state program administrated by the State of Massachusetts, there are certain
portions that would not be applicable to the City of Alexandria. For example, the City is not going to receive a
financial incentive from the state to set up a district as described in this program. However, the procedural
requirements such as approval deadlines and development densities allowable by right with certain geographic
Affordable Housing Regulatory Tools Case Studies Compiled by the Alexandria Office of Housing, December 2010
10

oundaries could be implemented within the City of Alexandria. The city would not need enabling legislation to
implement the procedural requirements associated with this program.
9. Corte Madera, CA Affordable Housing Overlay Zones
Source:
http://www.kennedycommission.org/documents/HE_Toolbox_000.pdf
http://www.snrpc.org/WorkforceHousing/Development/AffordableHousingOverlayZoning.pdf
Overview
The town of Corte Madera, CA has established a number of overlay zones in its zoning code that address the
development of affordable housing. The zoning code includes the following zones: an optional affordable housing
zone, two exclusive affordable housing zones, and a mixed use affordable housing overlay zone.
How does it work?
The Town of Corte Madera, CA includes two overlay zones that require that 100 percent of the housing built within
the specific area is affordable, and two overlay zones that allow a number of incentives if affordable housing is
provided. The exclusive affordable overlay zones are old and abandoned industrial and commercial sites that
currently do not allow residential development. The exclusive overlay zone allows the site to redeveloped with
residential development, but only if 100 percent of the units are deemed affordable. These zones ensure that the
identified sites are preserved for affordable housing and encourage for‐profit/nonprofit/ public partnerships in
order to access public financing for maximum affordability and quality. The two optional affordable housing
overlay zones allow incentives such as increased density by right and reduction in fees if specific amounts of
affordable housing are provided.
Applicability to Alexandria
The City of Alexandria has very few abandoned sites that do not contain substantial market value; therefore, it
would be very difficult to implement “exclusive affordable housing overlay zones” at such sites. In addition,
creating overlay zones that require certain percentages of affordable housing without providing additional
incentives would require state enabling legislation. However, the city could implement overlay zones that provide
additional incentives in return for certain percentages of affordable housing that would be more in line with the
Alexandria market and would not require state enabling legislation.
Affordable Housing Regulatory Tools Case Studies Compiled by the Alexandria Office of Housing, December 2010
11